American Politics mark something something

[DanteGabriel]

Rand Paul has a point. If I want to open my little whites-only steakhouse, what's gonna happen is that a good chunk of my potential customers will refuse to eat my steaks, and more than that, likely start picketing and yelling in front of my parking lot, scaring away even more people. Hopefully I will soon realize that my policy makes no sense, repent and wail in sackcloth, and welcome gentlemen of color to my tables. And if not, would you really want to eat at a restaurant whose owner you know hates you and would only serve you if compelled by law?

Wrong business model. You install a membership fee, raise the prices, and call it a dining club.

[Shryke]

Oh, I dunno. I think it might actually work today. But the fact is that it wasn't working in the South, which spent a century resisting modernization. If some sort of free market, private people shunning, solution would have worked eventually, we as a society weren't willing to wait decades for that to maybe happen. The human cost incurred while waiting for the South to move on is untenable.

No it wouldn't because your model only works if the shunning is enough to drive the company bankrupt. And that there aren't enough people who don't care or support your racism to keep the business afloat.

And again, as DG mentions, it never worked. There were never even signs that it was starting to work.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

So to be clear, El-ahrairah supports sodomy laws, the traditional rights of the British nobility, and now racial discrimination. I'm shocked.

[Mad Monkey]

So to be clear, El-ahrairah supports sodomy laws, the traditional rights of the British nobility, and now racial discrimination. I'm shocked.

He never said that. He just said that businesses who practiced racial discrimination would fail on their own without any state sanctions whatsoever, and if not then why would black people want to eat there anyway.

I do think it's a bit easier to speak out against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, even as an egalitarian or another non-racist person, if you know for a fact that even in its absence you would never have to drive around for four hours to find a safe place to eat, or jump through unnatural hoops in certain areas just to be able to vote (an issue that even poor white citizens had to deal with in many states). It becomes an academic argument, sort of like a debate over what the Civil War was about or whether or not Caesar should have crossed the Rubicon; the outcome of such a debate doesn't matter since no matter who wins the debate the song remains the same and everyone gets to go home. It's not really racism, just indifference to the idea that other people might be a bit concerned if a major political leader was perceived as disparaging what is essentially their civil rights.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

He never said that. He just said that businesses who practiced racial discrimination would fail on their own without any state sanctions whatsoever, and if not then why would black people want to eat there anyway.

He supports sodomy laws because--he argued--some practices are reprehensible enough to deserve society's condemnation. He's now coming out against laws prohibiting racial discrimination. It doesn't take a genius to read between the lines.

[Shryke]

He never said that. He just said that businesses who practiced racial discrimination would fail on their own without any state sanctions whatsoever, and if not then why would black people want to eat there anyway.

I do think it's a bit easier to speak out against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, even as an egalitarian or another non-racist person, if you know for a fact that even in its absence you would never have to drive around for four hours to find a safe place to eat, or jump through unnatural hoops in certain areas just to be able to vote (an issue that even poor white citizens had to deal with in many states). It becomes an academic argument, sort of like a debate over what the Civil War was about or whether or not Caesar should have crossed the Rubicon; the outcome of such a debate doesn't matter since no matter who wins the debate the song remains the same and everyone gets to go home. It's not really racism, just indifference to the idea that other people might be a bit concerned if a major political leader was perceived as disparaging what is essentially their civil rights.

It's indifference to the discrimination heaped on others for their race.

Or, you know, racism. At best, indifference to racism, which is essentially the same thing.

[El-ahrairah]

So to be clear, El-ahrairah supports sodomy laws, the traditional rights of the British nobility, and now racial discrimination. I'm shocked.

Just so. He also supports repealing the 19th Amendment, burning witches at the stake (sorry Lany), the jus primae noctis, and filling in the Panama Canal. :)

But are we talking about now or 1964? I've a feeling rather few business owners would put out "Whites Only" signs were the Act repealed today, compared to those who had them when it was passed. Just because it may have been needed than means not it is still needed now.

[lokisnow]

I am really impressed that the big news of the financial services passing the senate has been unable to dislodge 'rand paul is a racist/extremist' story from the top of memeorandum.

Rand Paul has a point. If I want to open my little whites-only steakhouse, what's gonna happen is that a good chunk of my potential customers will refuse to eat my steaks, and more than that, likely start picketing and yelling in front of my parking lot, scaring away even more people. Hopefully I will soon realize that my policy makes no sense, repent and wail in sackcloth, and welcome gentlemen of color to my tables. And if not, would you really want to eat at a restaurant whose owner you know hates you and would only serve you if compelled by law?

Except, here's how it worked in practice. your protesters are arrested for protesting while black, but before they're thrown in the paddy wagon they are viciously beaten for being uppity. Someone of an opposite inclination thinks this is unfair and opens a steakhouse that advertises being open to everyone. You and your buddies with similar whites-only businesses burn his place to the ground and put a firey cross in his front yard to teach him an important lesson about his evil actions. Everyone is afraid to retaliate against the whites-only establishments. One night, a window is broken in your restaurant, the next sunday morning three black youths and one old man are found swinging from a sycamore tree because the free market judged they were guilty of the heinous crime of a broken window. None of them ever had anything to do with the window, but they committed the crime of being black after a window was broken. The free market unchecked colludes to very vicious practices very quickly.

[The Iceman of the North]

Just a question for the supporters of the Arizona law regarding. Without racial profiling, what is the point of the law? If a police officer can only ask for proof of legal residence if they have reasonable suspicion that the person they are questioning are an illegal alien, if racial profiling is out, what constitutes reasonable suspicion?

FLOW mentioned English skills, but there's a couple of problems with this. English is not the official language in Arizona, and there's plenty of people born in Arizona with Spanish as their first language. It's hardly a stretch to assume that a lot of these, particularly among the elderly, are not very proficient in English.

So if you can't use apparent ethnic background, or language skills, what can you base reasonable suspicion on? If there's nothing to base this reasonable suspicion on, then a police officer have to either ignore the new law entirely (which makes the law pointless), or ignore the prohibition against racial profiling.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Just a question for the supporters of the Arizona law regarding. Without racial profiling, what is the point of the law? If a police officer can only ask for proof of legal residence if they have reasonable suspicion that the person they are questioning are an illegal alien, if racial profiling is out, what constitutes reasonable suspicion?

FLOW mentioned English skills, but there's a couple of problems with this. English is not the official language in Arizona, and there's plenty of people born in Arizona with Spanish as their first language. It's hardly a stretch to assume that a lot of these, particularly among the elderly, are not very proficient in English.

So if you can't use apparent ethnic background, or language skills, what can you base reasonable suspicion on? If there's nothing to base this reasonable suspicion on, then a police officer have to either ignore the new law entirely (which makes the law pointless), or ignore the prohibition against racial profiling.

An inability to speak English (not just a lack of fluency) isn't proof you're here illegally. But I think it does create a reasonable suspicion that isn't based simply on the race of the individual.

[TrackerNeil]

But are we talking about now or 1964? I've a feeling rather few business owners would put out "Whites Only" signs were the Act repealed today, compared to those who had them when it was passed. Just because it may have been needed than means not it is still needed now.

You're right. Let's repeal those child labor laws too, because nobody would resort to those practices now. And shy stop there? We should stop forcing people who want to operate cars to get driver's licenses...by now we can trust them to learn before getting behind the wheel. Why, we could spend the next twenty years repealing the previous one hundred!

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You're right. Let's repeal those child labor laws too, because nobody would resort to those practices now. And shy stop there? We should stop forcing people who want to operate cars to get driver's licenses...by now we can trust them to learn before getting behind the wheel. Why, we could spend the next twenty years repealing the previous one hundred!

Just because every law shouldn't be repealed doesn't mean that no laws should be repealed.

[Nymeria Sand]

You need to read the law. If that's what the cop says, it is a per se violation of the statute. They can only check on immigration states AFTER the person has been lawfully stopped due to a reason OTHER THAN immigration status.

You're missing the point. The point is whether there is a law in place or not, the cops do it already. If there is not a law, it's blatantly illegal for them to do it. What this law does is give justification to racial profiling and makes it legal. Now the cops can do anything they want and the "suspect", for lack of a better word, has no recourse.

If what the law says doesn't matter, why are you so concerned about it?

Do you really want to live in a country where you can be stopped and searched just on the basis of your skin color? Do you really? That is why we should be concerned.

Oh, wait. You're probably a white male who doesn't have to worry about that. Aren't you just special?

What this could potentially do is force everyone, blond haired, blue-eyed Nordic types not excepted, to prove their citizenship.

I hope you have an original copy of your birth certificate, because I sure as hell don't.

[Tempra]

You're missing the point. The point is whether there is a law in place or not, the cops do it already. If there is not a law, it's blatantly illegal for them to do it. What this law does is give justification to racial profiling and makes it legal. Now the cops can do anything they want and the "suspect", for lack of a better word, has no recourse.

No. It. Does. Not.

This is really not hard to understand. The law does not change the ability of the cop to stop someone. Cops can stop someone if they have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or will be committing a crime OTHER than being an illegal immigrant. This is the standard under Terry v. Ohio. What this law DOES is give cops the ability to check the immigration status of an individual who is LAWFULLY stopped (the question of whether someone has been lawfully stopped HAS NOT changed).

Do you really want to live in a country where you can be stopped and searched just on the basis of your skin color? Do you really? That is why we should be concerned.

This is illegal. Stop fearmongering.

Oh, wait. You're probably a white male who doesn't have to worry about that. Aren't you just special?

Cute.

What this could potentially do is force everyone, blond haired, blue-eyed Nordic types not excepted, to prove their citizenship.

Just Godwin the thread, please.

[alguien]

No. It. Does. Not.

This is really not hard to understand. The law does not change the ability of the cop to stop someone. Cops can stop someone if they have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or will be committing a crime OTHER than being an illegal immigrant. This is the standard under Terry v. Ohio. What this law DOES is give cops the ability to check the immigration status of an individual who is LAWFULLY stopped (the question of whether someone has been lawfully stopped HAS NOT changed).

This is illegal. Stop fearmongering.

Because cops never pull people over for bullshit reasons to harass them. :rolleyes: And this just gives the bad ones another way to harass subjects. That's the fucking point.

Basically, you're arguments are beginning to sound like, "La la la la. Cops can't use this to harass latinos. Nope! NO! Never! After all, its illegal!!"

This fantasy world of beautiful perfect policeman you live in must be nice. Did not the original wording of this law specifically mention using race as a factor? Grow up. Open your eyes.

[DanteGabriel]

Watch the introduction of a new GOP talking point, spinning out a conveniently revisionist history to try and deny how much they've gotten in bed with racists (which I believe was advanced by some posters here on a previous US Politics thread):

The GOP went there. In an email sent to reporters in the height of the Rand Paul firestorm yesterday, the NRSC defended its Senate nominee in Kentucky by pointing out that it wasn't Republicans who were the most vocal opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when it was in Congress.

"As a side note, I would point out the irony - which seems to have been lost in some of the news coverage -- that the same party seeking to manufacture this issue today, is in fact the same political party which led the filibuster against the Civil Rights Act in 1964," NRSC spokesperson Brian Walsh wrote.

The true history of the Civil Rights act, according to Princeton university Sean Wilentz, is not exactly worthy of glib emails from the GOP.

"Everybody knows that in 1964, a proud southern Democratic President, Lyndon Johnson, pushed hard to secure the Civil Rights Bill, with the aid of a coalition of northern Democrats and Republicans," Wilentz said. "This sent the defeated segregationist Southern Democrats (led by Strom Thurmond) fleeing into the Republican Party, where its remnants, along with a younger generation of extremist conservative white southerners, including Rand Paul, still reside."

...

Wilentz said that any suggestion that Democrats talking about the Civil Rights act is somehow hypocritical is pretty much a complete rejection of the actual facts -- and the political landscape at the time.

"In many ways, the 1964 Act defined the modern political parties -- with the Republicans becoming the heirs to the traditions of the Confederacy and Jim Crow, and the Democrats embracing the tradition of Abraham Lincoln," he wrote.

He said that the history of the bill shows that Republicans didn't hold the high ground when it came to supporting Civil Rights.

"Brian Walsh may have forgotten that Lyndon Johnson ran for president in 1964 against a Republican nominee, Barry Goldwater, who repudiated the Civil Rights Act," Wilentz wrote.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/nrsc-calls-dem-codemnation-of-paul-civil-rights-act-statements-ironic.php?ref=fpb

[Shryke]

An inability to speak English (not just a lack of fluency) isn't proof you're here illegally. But I think it does create a reasonable suspicion that isn't based simply on the race of the individual.

So now everyone who can't speak english super fluently needs to carry papers too?

Wow, the list of the people exempt from having to constantly carry proof of citizenship/immigration is getting smaller and smaller.

White and Black people who speak fluent English: The privileged few

[Shryke]

No. It. Does. Not.

This is really not hard to understand. The law does not change the ability of the cop to stop someone. Cops can stop someone if they have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or will be committing a crime OTHER than being an illegal immigrant. This is the standard under Terry v. Ohio. What this law DOES is give cops the ability to check the immigration status of an individual who is LAWFULLY stopped (the question of whether someone has been lawfully stopped HAS NOT changed).

So now everyone who could potentially be pulled over for a lawful stop must carry proof of citizenship/immigration yes?

[Shryke]

Krugman on the new financial reform stuff:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/thank-you-lloyd-blankfein/

FinReg: what do I think? I think Ed Andrews has it right: not all it should have been, but better than seemed likely not long ago, thanks to a changed climate. Wall Street in general, and Goldman in particular, provided scandals at just the right time. Thank you, Lloyd Blankfein.

What’s good? Resolution authority, which was sorely lacking last year; consumer protection; derivatives traded through clearinghouses; ratings reform, thanks to Al Franken; tighter capital standards for big players, although with too much discretion to regulators.

What’s missing? Hard leverage limits; size caps; not much in the way of restoring Glass-Steagall. If you think that too big to fail is the core problem, it’s disappointing; if you think that shadow banking is the core, as I do, not too bad.

[DanteGabriel]

Rand Paul thinks it's un-American to criticize a British oil company for causing a gigantic oil spill on the Gulf Coast.

On Good Morning America today, Paul also steered the conversation toward something more recent, President Obama's criticism of BP following the oil spill. Paul said: "This sort of, you know 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."

Paul continued: The President's reaction is "part of this sort of blame game society" where "it's always someone's fault." Paul added: "Maybe sometimes accidents happen."

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/rand-paul-obamas-bp-comments-sound-really-un-american-video.php?ref=fpa